South Africa Case Law

R.D.D v V.D.D (2024/067120; A2024/005340)

R.D.D v V.D.D (2024/067120; A2024/005340) [2025] ZAGPJHC 428 (6 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/067120; A2024/005340

Judges

S D J Wilson, Mabesela

The High Court condoned the applicant's non-compliance with Rule 35, finding that the substance of section 81 of the Magistrates' Court Act had been observed and that the court retained inherent power to regulate its own process in the interests of justice. On the merits, the court held that the clerk and Magistrate acted reasonably in refusing to allow the claimed disbursements, as there was no evidence of actual payment and the invoices appeared to be for the applicant's own time, which is not recoverable by a litigant in person. The appeal and review were accordingly dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Self Represented Litigant Costs

Anaye v Jaskolka and Others (133375/2023)

Anaye v Jaskolka and Others (133375/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 321 (24 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

133375/2023

Judges

MMP Mdalana-Mayisela, T Bokako

The High Court reviewed and set aside a magistrates’ conviction for illegal immigration after finding the proceedings were not interpreted in Amharic.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Language Of Proceedings
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Immigration Offences
• Fair-trial-rights
• Language-of-proceedings

A.M.D v C.D.D and Others (2024/142336)

A.M.D v C.D.D and Others (2024/142336) [2025] ZAGPJHC 208 (5 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/142336

Judge

Adams

Leave to appeal against a costs order was refused because the applicant showed no reasonable prospects of success and the costs discretion was properly exercised.

• Costs Orders
• Leave To Appeal
• Children S Act
• Judicial Discretion
• Curatrix Ad Litem
• Review Of Magistrates Court

Mohiudeen v Bara N.O and Others (521/2023)

Mohiudeen v Bara N.O and Others (521/2023) [2024] ZAECQBHC 82 (5 December 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

521/2023

Judges

Rossi, A Beyleveld

The court held that intervention in unterminated criminal proceedings is reserved for rare cases where grave injustice would result or justice cannot be attained by other means. The applicant failed to demonstrate any gross irregularity or grave injustice that could not be remedied at trial or on appeal. The charge sheet, together with the preamble and further particulars, adequately set out the elements of fraud and theft, including the alleged common purpose and prejudice to Transnet. The applicant was provided with the docket and witness statements, and any further disputes regarding evide…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Charge Sheet Particularity
• Common Purpose
• Minimum Sentences
• Jurisdictional Objection

D.P v B and Another (2024/080548)

D.P v B and Another (2024/080548) [2024] ZAGPJHC 722 (5 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/080548

Judge

Liebenberg AJ

The High Court dismissed an urgent review of interim Children's Court orders in a parenting dispute, finding the absence of a record prevented intervention.

• Parental Alienation
• Interim Care And Contact
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Best Interests Of Child
• Forensic Investigation
• Children S Act Procedure

S v I.S (R21/2024)

S v I.S (R21/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 213 (23 July 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R21/2024

Judges

Loubser PJ, Mhlambi J

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s conviction after it emerged the accused was 17. The prosecution must restart under the Child Justice Act.

• Child Justice Act
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Age Determination
• Diversion
• Illegal Entry
• Child-justice-act

Dipheko v Ditse and Another (CA&R50/2021)

Dipheko v Ditse and Another (CA&R50/2021) [2024] ZANCHC 49 (24 May 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R50/2021

Judges

Lever, Tyuthuza

The court found that the applicant's right to a fair trial was not violated. The chain of custody for the DNA evidence was properly established through the testimony of multiple witnesses, and the defence did not request a trial within a trial to challenge admissibility. The State discharged its onus to prove the integrity of the evidence, and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with justice. No gross irregularity occurred, and the grounds for review under section 22 of the Superior Courts Act were not met. The application for review was dismissed, the conviction confirmed, and the m…

Source excerpt

• Chain Of Custody
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Dna Evidence

Aziz v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2023/012763)

Aziz v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2023/012763) [2024] ZAGPJHC 69 (12 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/012763

Judges

GY Sidwell, CJ Coertse

The High Court found that the applicant's right to a fair trial was violated due to incompetent legal representation by a candidate attorney who failed to consult adequately, did not apply for a postponement, and failed to challenge inadmissible evidence and prejudicial statements. The magistrate did not intervene to prevent the miscarriage of justice. The cumulative effect of these irregularities rendered the trial unfair. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the applicant was ordered to be released from detention immediately.

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Competence Of Legal Representation
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Sentencing Irregularities

S v CNP (Special Review) (CA & R 31/2023)

S v CNP (Special Review) (CA & R 31/2023) [2023] ZANCHC 64 (5 October 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 31/2023

Judges

Phatshoane, Mamosebo

The High Court reviewed and replaced a child offender’s sentence after finding the magistrate’s order incompetent and insufficiently specific under the Child Justice Act.

• Child Justice Act
• Sentencing Of Children
• Compulsory Residence Order
• Rehabilitation Programmes
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Children S Rights

September v Additional Magistrate for the District of Paarl and Another - Review Judgment (2855/2023)

September v Additional Magistrate for the District of Paarl and Another - Review Judgment (2855/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 247 (2 October 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2855/2023

Judges

Henney, Le Grange

The court found that the mechanical recording of the proceedings did not reflect any explanation of the applicant's right to legal representation prior to his plea. This omission constituted a gross irregularity, as the right to legal representation is a fundamental component of a fair trial under section 35 of the Constitution. The Magistrate's explanation that the 'short procedure' under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act required the applicant to proceed without legal representation was erroneous and improper. The indiscriminate use of section 112(1)(a) should not undermine fa…

Source excerpt

• Right To Legal Representation
• Gross Irregularity
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Fair Trial Rights